Public international law

In the open thread I regularly posted unadorned links for no reason other than that it was vaguely interesting. I suppose they look a little worse under the /r/discussion format because of slightly heightened expectations of seeing commentary in a new discussion section post versus a root level open thread comment.

I suppose if I become sufficiently annoying it will hasten the creation of new subreddits for such things as surprising as link sharing.

Replies from: Richard_Kennaway

↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2010-11-11T13:18:21.720Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

In the open thread I regularly posted unadorned links for no reason other than that it was vaguely interesting.

"Vaguely interesting" is not a good enough reason for posting such things anywhere on LessWrong. I don't know whose expectations you're talking about, but I require that a link be (a) relevant to LessWrong, and (b) posted with a description of its relevance and importance.

As a general rule, I don't bother clicking on links, anywhere on the web, whose surrounding text gives me no reason to, and if the text only raises it to "vaguely interesting" I pass by. Life is too short as it is, without making it shorter by frittering it away on "vaguely interesting".

Replies from: Kevin

↑ comment by Kevin · 2010-11-11T13:40:48.061Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

"Vaguely interesting" is not a good enough reason for posting such things anywhere on LessWrong

Sure it is. The whole point of the discussion section is to allow for lower quality, even off-topic material, where someone can feel comfortable making a post without being criticized for not being Less Wrongy enough. Save your uber-serious expectations for the main page.

Off-topic posts are allowed on the discussion section. They may be downmodded if sufficiently uninteresting to most of LW. But they are allowed.

I'm not sure what you are doing with your life, but at this point I have dedicated my life to the vaguely interesting, though perhaps the largest known example of cooperation between agents gets an interestingness point beyond fritterous. Mmm... deep fried batter.

To clarify, what I found most interesting about this article was this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law#Enforcement

Replies from: Richard_Kennaway

↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2010-11-11T13:49:26.218Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The whole point of the discussion section is to allow for lower quality, even off-topic material.

Irrelevant junk is not the aim, and that is what History of Manga, Public International Law, and Hillary's chatter are. Conjoined twins who share a brain/experience was fine, although no-one had much to say about it. Entropy and basement universes, marginal.

So say I, and so says the karma.